Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Is Not Legally Responsible For The Rise of ISIS, Rules California District Court (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the protected-speech dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: A lawsuit accusing Twitter of providing material support to ISIS has been dismissed by a California District Court. First filed in January, the lawsuit argued ISIS's persistent presence on Twitter constituted material support for the terror group, and sought to hold Twitter responsible for an ISIS-linked attack on that basis. Filed by the family of an American contractor named Lloyd Fields, the lawsuit sought damages from an ISIS-linked attack in Jordan that claimed Fields' life. The plaintiff's initial complaint alleged widespread fundraising and recruitment through the platform, attributing 30,000 foreign actors recruited through ISIS Twitter accounts in 2015 alone. The judge assigned to the case was ultimately not swayed by that reasoning, finding that the plaintiffs had not offered a convincing argument for holding Twitter liable. The plaintiff will have the chance to submit a modified version of the complaint within 20 days of the order, the second such modification ordered by the judge. The report adds: "Apart from the private nature of Direct Messaging, plaintiffs identify no other way in which their Direct Messaging theory seeks to treat Twitter as anything other than a publisher of information provided by another information content provider," the ruling reads. At the same time, even the private nature of Twitter's Direct Messaging feature "does not remove the transmission of such messages from the scope of publishing activity under section 230(c)(1)."

140 comments

  1. Hillary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Technically, she's a co-founder.

    1. Re:Hillary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      According to Trump, Obama is the founder http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...

    2. Re:Hillary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I see. I guess it was the two together, then.

    3. Re:Hillary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Iraq the co-founder?

      It's arguable that ISIS gained its foothold when the US left Iraq. The US left Iraq because Iraq told them to.

    4. Re:Hillary is by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      Um no Obama pulled everyone out in a hurry well before iraq's were able to take care of their own country.

    5. Re:Hillary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um YES the Iraqi government had an agreement with Bush to withdraw the troops and rejected a suspension. If Obama had ignored this request the U.S. would be going against the wishes of a sovereign government.

    6. Re:Hillary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Iraqi government had an agreement with the US government... previously negotiated by the Bush administration which was done so that the next administration would be able to negotiate a new/extended agreement according to it's own policy decisions... something it failed to do.

    7. Re:Hillary is by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful
      http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

      Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,” that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in Iraq. As a result, the Obama administration sought to keep 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, as Sullivan said in his statement.

      But negotiations with Iraq broke down in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities. Panetta wrote that Maliki insisted that a new agreement providing immunity to U.S. forces “would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for its approval,” which Panetta said “made reaching agreement very difficult.”

      Yes, Bush punted and Obama didn't want to take away all reconstruction aid to force Iraq to capitulate. But cut to the chase.... BUSH negotiated and signed the force agreement that mandated troops be removed, and while his people HOPED it could be renegotiated, that doesn't absolve him from negotiating and signing it.

      There's a lot of worthless fucking partisans out there who want to "misremember" that Bush got us into this whole fucking mess a long time before Obama was even thinking about being on the scene. I can't tell sometimes if they're all just natural born fucking liars, or their simply too fucking stupid to use their brains.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    8. Re: Hillary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Nice lie, liar. Any more lies you want to tell, liar?

    9. Re:Hillary is by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ISIS came from Al Qaeda In Iraq.
      Al Qaeda In Iraq came to be because Bush The Lesser invaded Iraq and deposed its leader.
      A leader who, while being a horrible person and general pile of evil, also tended to keep a lid on extremism in his country, albeit for self-serving reasons (they threated his own power).

      The pull out came because of an agreement signed by Bush the Lesser's Administration, agreeing to pull out by a certain time in 2011.
      The Obama administration actually tried to negotiate to stay longer , but was unable to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government.
      This is because the Iraqi government wanted the American troops to be subject to Iraqi laws and law enforcement. .
      The Obama Administration wisely said no to that condition, and therefore was compelled to adhere to the existing agreement, and pulled out.

      The ensuing (actually it began before bush eevn left office) mismanagement of Iraq's defense and military btw is mostly due to the man installed in power by Bush the Lesser's administration, Maliki, started out as a moderate, but quickly became corrupt himself and began using his power (and the military) to silence or coerce his political rivals and enemies. He weakened the morale of the Iraqi troops we trained and armed, he misused them, and then when faced with an actual threat, the merging of elements in Syria with Al Qaeda In Iraq into what has become ISIS, they bailed.

      Which has since causes the US to re-enter Iraq, with ever growing number of troops, begin bombing ISIS (for over 2 years now), and quite successfully. ISIS made some large initial gains because of momentum and the bailing of the Iraqi Army. However they have since been pushed back out of over half the territory they originally took.

      So the point is this:
      calling Obama the found of ISIS in the face of the campaign against ISIS, is like calling Obama a socialist at a time when the capitalist economy of the US has never been better: pure delusional BS. If Obama is a socialist, he is the worst socialist ever. Likewise, if he is the founder of ISIS, he is horrible at it, and was only made possible by the missteps and outright lies of the administration of Bush the Lesser, the man who actually is responsible for the rise of ISIS.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    10. Re:Hillary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a little of both.

    11. Re:Hillary is by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Fucking millennials.

      I'll tell you who is: George Bush, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney. Destroying Iraq created the original power-vacuum in the Middle East that set off the domino effect of the Arab Spring. The so-called 'islamic state' assholes are just (attempting to) fill that vacuum.

      Vote for Gary Johnson (or anyone who is NOT named 'Clinton' or 'Trump'). He won't win, but at least no one will be able to point a finger at you and say YOU are in part to blame for the fall of the United States.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    12. Re:Hillary is by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      ISIS came from Al Qaeda In Iraq.

      Wrong. ISIS was founded by President Obama. I heard it on TV this morning from Donald Trump. Therefore it's true.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    13. Re:Hillary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhh, Republicans. If you don't like the news, just make it up!

    14. Re:Hillary is by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Partisans are never to be believed. These are like sports fans, rooting for their team and booing the other team, even when both teams spend all the time on the field doing the same actions.

    15. Re:Hillary is by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Obama was not the founder, (though there are conspiracy nuts who claim Obama and McCain and others deliberately funded them) but there was seriously nothing more Obama could have done or tried, besides handwash everything away and declare ISIS a "JV team"? I think that statement very clearly demonstrates a negligent or cavalier attitude, at the time.
      If you want to keep backtracking on causation, one could possibly claim G.W. Bush was forced into Iraq because of Bill Clinton's and UN's mishandling of the sanctions against Saddam, too, which were a mess, as well as frequent failure to maintain the no-fly zone during the cease fire of the "first" war. It was actually our sustained military presence in the region that gave rise to Al Qaeda and their hatred of the US. Bill in turn was forced into it because of Bush Sr., who had no choice but to respond to Saddam's aggression against Kuwait. If only SH had kept his damn army in Iraq, none of this would probably be happening.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    16. Re: Hillary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, lets sue glock and barretta for all police shootings too...

    17. Re:Hillary is by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Arming Mujahideen fighters with String missiles (1982), Iran–Contra affair (1985), Operation Desert Shield (1990), Operation Desert Storm - Gulf War (1991)

      You can go back even further and examine Arab-Israeli conflict and Egypt-Israel conflicts over Sinai peninsula. Basically the first day when British rule over the region ended, Jews declared a state of Israel, and Arabs (Egypt mostly) send forces into Israel. It's been a mess ever since, and the US did not cause this problem. We keep trying to fix the Middle-East but the US is unable to do that.

      You can blame WWI, the British and maybe the Ottoman Empire for falling. You can also blame the generally unwelcome treatment Jews have been given in Europe for centuries for their exodus to Israel and the intolerance of 20th century Arab Muslims for their inability to co-exist with Jews.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    18. Re: Hillary is by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      "Arming Mujahideen fighters with String missiles"

      For when Silly String just doesn't get the message across.

      Seriously though, you summed it up pretty well though I'd emphasize the effect of the Holocaust on the consequent take no prisoners attitude of the Palestine/Israeli Jews and, since the start of the Cold War, partisan US and Western support for Israel in preparing the ground for the rise of militant Islam.

    19. Re: Hillary is by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      sorry, "Stinger" missiles. I'm a programmer and I probably type "String" a few dozen times a day. (also I don't proof-read my posts)

      Yes, I think the West has a fair amount of responsibility in setting up the initial conditions. And the US and Russia having a proxy war through Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq probably contributed significantly to the instability of the region. But to me the real sharp downward slide was the end of World War I and the policy of the League of Nations (primarily composed of Western nations). But for all the playing of chessmen that Europe and the United States has done over the decades, much of the blame I lay at the feet of Arabs and Jews who from the get go chose violence over coexistence. (Yeah, easy for me to say. My forefathers were OK with the genocide of Native Americans. Because obviously white people can't coexist with so called "savage races")

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    20. Re: Hillary is by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      That last bit seems to be a fundamental part of human nature: when two groups are in competition for a finite resource they will often resort to violence.

    21. Re:Hillary is by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If only SH had kept his damn army in Iraq

      If only! Though maybe the US telling them they didn't particularly care if he squabbled with Kuwait or not influenced his decision..

  2. ISIS is risen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I thought they were sand people with AK-47's.

  3. Another Case of Palsgraf by speedplane · · Score: 4, Informative

    I skimmed the full opinion, but a 1928 case is instructive. In the 1928 case of Palsgraf v. LIRR a women in a train station was injured when another passenger dropped a box of fireworks that caused some heavy equipment to fall on the women. The women sued the railroad company (as they likely had deeper pockets than the person dropping the fireworks). The court found that the rail road was too far removed from the events that occurred to find them liable. Here too, Twitter is too far removed from the actions of terrorists to find them liable.

    This is a pretty interesting example of classic legal concepts being applied to new technology. Anyone who says that the law is outmoded or needs to catch up, only needs to read this opinion.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    1. Re:Another Case of Palsgraf by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, but the railroad company didn't pick and choose which luggage it took and which it didn't. Twitter is brazenly open about banning accounts whose politics it disagrees with. It's not some kind of common carrier situation. Islamic State DOES use Twitter as a recruiting tool and people really do die afterwards.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Another Case of Palsgraf by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Maybe the lawyers should have argued that in court. The judge isn't going to do their work for them, if they don't present a reason, they're probably not going to get it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Another Case of Palsgraf by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is a pretty interesting example of classic legal concepts being applied to new technology. Anyone who says that the law is outmoded or needs to catch up, only needs to read this opinion.

      No, that's what's so maddening about law today. Even when the existing law covers the situation adequately, they often feel a need to make new laws. This is especially true when you reach the internet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Another Case of Palsgraf by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I find it actually fascinating that "on the internet" didn't require its own precedents. Maybe judges do adapt eventually.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: Another Case of Palsgraf by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      It's still the same: just like the railroad won't allow you to take grenades on the train, Twitter don't want dangerous lunatics on their service.

  4. Really? by BitterOak · · Score: 2

    Cause I thought the general consensus was that Twitter is responsible for the rise of Isis, and terrorism in general.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "general" consensus? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    2. Re:Really? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      Following the general consensus, I'm sure the US Department of Defense has come to the same conclusion, and is re-directing their resources as we speak.

      To anyone who lives / works near there: can you please look out the window & check if Twitter HQ is being bombed already? Thx for keeping us up to date!

    3. Re:Really? by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      But Twitter make for a great boogeyman right now, among others.
      Reminds me of the old game of distraction while your pocket is being picked .. but this .. on a much grander scale ..

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    4. Re: Really? by BlckAdder · · Score: 1

      They're not being bombed right now, but they just decided to lease out hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space in their headquarters. Maybe they know something is coming...

    5. Re:Really? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The US Department of Defence investigated the rise of ISIS, oh the dry whit. Perhaps those captured American weapons and munitions, plus videos of ISIS using American weapons and munitions, plus actual journalist investigatory efforts, plus the reports from other countries investigatory agencies, plus actual battles between DOD terrorists and CIA terrorist, would have been a big enough hint as to who was responsible for the rise of ISIS and not by bloody accident. Well, I guess that will be one really easy investigation (look up the own record of actions) and will involve the use of a shit ton digital black marker pens when a freedom of information civil suit results in the report being made public. We all know exactly who they should be suing in equal measures. Number one on the hit parade, Saudi Arabia, followed closely by the NATO and then the US government (actually separate from NATO, really shonky stuff is going on between NATO and the US/UK/EU war industries from which the US government is actually excluded although they well and truly are footing the bill in every way imaginable), followed closely by Turkey and to round out the pack Israel. Suing Twitter for this mess was about as stupid as it could get, where as, fronting the court with much evidence of US arms and munitions, stuff you can not just go out and buy on the internet, would be quite effective and likely to draw assistance from various other countries governments, especially if the corrupt Democrat nominee is targeted (by someone with a bullet proof vest).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Really? by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      Wow, seems people really misunderstood my post. I should have used the tag! I was trying to point out that this court was kind of stating the obvious. I mean, other than the plaintiff in this case, did anyone think Twitter was really responsible for the rise of ISIS?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But..But.. I thought that Hillary Clinton was responsible for creating ISIS? :p /Trumped

    8. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I, for one, assumed you were being sarcastic. (Posting AC because I've moderated another post in this thread.)

    9. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are aiding and abetting. Dumb@ss. They pull other political tweets off, they can pull these.

    10. Re: Really? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Operation Human Shield?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Really? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, without either tone of voice or facial expressions, your message is quite ambiguous, but the straightforwards meaning being more likely than sarcasm. This is a characteristic of email, texting, etc. and is one reason emoji are so common.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human shields don't work to deter terrorists ... they don't care and will blow up anyone who they can get to. We are all enemies

    13. Re: Really? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I thought the threat was that the US would bomb the Twitter HQ? Last time I checked the US at least nominally did give a shit about collateral damage, at least if it could damage some white guys.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. FBI @ SLASHDOT NEED TO GET YOUR RESPONSES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    They really need to know how Twitter (their spyware too) and ISIS will help Slashdotter's fight Terrorism with Windows ANNIVERSARY 10.

  6. So, let me see if I got this right... by Shoten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This guy is a police instructor, and goes to Jordan to train police in a part of the world that's not exactly known for being all rainbows and unicorn turds.

    Well after there have already been many "green on blue" attacks where instructees have shot up the (American) instructors in the name of extremist Islam, it happens to him and he gets killed in just such an event.

    His family doesn't go after the Jordanian police for not checking background information sufficiently, or taking other measures to watch for this kind of problem.

    His family doesn't go after the contracting company that he worked for, for not protecting him sufficiently while there.

    His family goes after...Twitter? Wow...let me JUST TAKE A WILD FUCKING GUESS why they went after Twitter...no, wait, I think I got it...

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:So, let me see if I got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well there is still Facebook, Reddit, 4chan, livejournal, myspace, etc. etc. etc.

    2. Re:So, let me see if I got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow...let me JUST TAKE A WILD FUCKING GUESS why they went after Twitter...

      Hope they weren't going after money, Twitter has yet to make any.

    3. Re: So, let me see if I got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why assume they are not also suing those others?

    4. Re:So, let me see if I got this right... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      So, what happens afterwards when the investigation of the shooter's computer reveals he was radicalized by Islamic State propaganda originating from Twitter? Did you even think that far, or just start flaming with the most obvious conclusion you could jump to?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:So, let me see if I got this right... by Sique · · Score: 1

      So was happens if the bomb that blows up your house was transported via the I-85? Do you sue the Department of Transportation?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re: So, let me see if I got this right... by Shoten · · Score: 1

      Why assume they are not also suing those others?

      Interesting logic. Maybe because they aren't suing other people, in all likelihood? I would believe that if they were, it would be covered in the news.

      Let's go further...why assume they aren't covert members of ISIS, and this is all a clever plot to raise money for a terrorist organization without anyone knowing? Why assume that this isn't all something that is crafted in the media by the cabal of Jewish lesbian dentists in that vault somewhere in Switzerland that controls everything, and they're just watching to see how we react? Why assume that we're not all in the Matrix?

      Because at some point, you have to deal with what you know, not what you can imagine (but for which there is no evidence). And yes, you have to make assumptions that the unavoidably vast number of things that you do NOT know does not include things that counter something you do know. As long as you 1, keep assumptions and knowledge separate and clear in your own mind and 2, use some vigilance to make sure that you're not failing to consider ways that knowledge could replace assumptions, you'll be fine.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    7. Re:So, let me see if I got this right... by eumoria · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the George Carlin bit of everyone being outraged when an American contractor gets killed.

      "Besides, who cares about some mercenary civilian contractor from Oklahoma who gets his head cut off? Fuck 'em. Hey Jack, you don't want to get your head cut off? Stay the fuck in Oklahoma. They ain't cuttin' off heads in Oklahoma, far as I know."

    8. Re:So, let me see if I got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Department of Transportation removes people off the I-85 who possess knives, yet allows people onto the I-85 who possess bombs then yes, I would sue the Department of Transportation.

    9. Re: So, let me see if I got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? I swear man, the IQ around here has dropped since the past couple new owners.

    10. Re: So, let me see if I got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad legal advice.

  7. Obama is responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's be honest, Bush shouldn't have started the invasion in 2003. There were no WMDs, and things like banned missiles were actually being destroyed. Hans Blix actually praised Iraq for disarming themselves and destroying the missiles just before Bush started the invasion. However, over the next several years, things were eventually brought under control by the troop surge and paying Iraqi militia to provide security. Obama stopped those payments and undid what Bush had finally gotten right. And he's shown utter incompetence in his handling of the situation in Syria. We should have learned that arming groups in the Middle East might provide temporary benefits, but has always come back to hurt the US. We regretted arming the Mujahedeen during the conflict in Afghanistan inviting the Soviets. We armed Iraq in the 1980s as they fought Iran, then regretted it when they committed genocide against the Kurds and invaded Kuwait. And yet somehow Obama thought it was a good idea to arm Syrian rebels. Assad is a piece of shit, no doubt, but he's content to be a brutal dictator in his own country and not destabilize his neighbors. Twitter isn't responsible. If they didn't exist, ISIL would distribute their propaganda through other channels. Obama, however, is very much to blame with his incompetent foreign policy.

    1. Re:Obama is responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      He's the worst president in history.

    2. Re:Obama is responsible by unixisc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While Bush & Obama both share the blame - Bush for toppling Saddam, who was busy curbing Shi'ites, and Obama for joining w/ the Sunni powers - the Saudis, the Turks, the Qataris in trying to topple Assad, the real responsibility for ISIS rise is in one place - Sunnis of both Iraq and Syria.

      As I have mentioned on quite a few occasions, a country's main Islamizing forces come from the majority Muslim sect in that country. Which is Shi'ites in Iraq, and Sunnites in Syria. In Syria, the Sunnis previously rallied behind the Muslim Brotherhood, and after the civil war started, they rallied behind the various Sunnite militias that arose, be it the FSA, Khorasan Group, Ansar al Shariah... In Iraq, the Sunnis, who were previously content to rally behind Saddam, now had to rally behind someone given the rise of an Iran backed Shi'ite regime in Baghdad. That force was previously Zarqawi, and after his death, ISIS.

      The thing to note about Islam is that it's not a 'live & let live' religion: everybody is expected to make everybody else follow 'true Islam', or whatever they think it is. So it's not enough to let all Muslims of different sects in any country co-exist happily - be it in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, et al. They have to make everybody else acknowledge that fact, and hence, one has not just the bloodletting in Syria & Iraq, but also Sunnite on Shi'ite violence in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et al. So after Iraq gets a 'democratically elected' government, the Shi'ites who dominate it have to enable their militias like the Mahdi Army and get into bed w/ Iran. On the other side, the Sunnis fight not merely for the right not to be persecuted by al Haidari or Assad, but to dominate the entire ummah, or Islamic world.

      The end result is that what started as a movement for the persecuted Sunnites in Syria and later Iraq is now a worldwide Jihadist campaign to restore the caliphate. While any number of Muslims can curse them all they like, fact remains that ISIS as a caliphate resembles caliphates of the past, like the Abbasids. In the 9th and 10th centuries, when the Abbasids were the caliphate in Baghdad, Muslim contenders for power in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkestan, et al would lobby to get the Caliph to recognize each of them, and who the Caliph endorsed actually mattered. Compare that to just now. Different Jihadist movements, like Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, Jemiah Islamiah in Indonesia, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, affiliate groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Boko Haram in North Africa all swear allegiance to ISIS. That's exactly how a Caliphate was supposed to work - a central group somewhere, and different Muslim armies worldwide doing everything they did in the name of Islam, and getting the official Islamic seal of approval from that central group.

      The reason ISIS is where it is is b'cos there are enough Muslims in the entire population who take seriously Islamic injunctions to wage Jihad on Infidels. Whether they rally behind ISIS, al Qaeda, CAIR, HAMAS, al Quds, Taliban, et al or anyone else is really immaterial

    3. Re:Obama is responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq was armed by the Russians and French weapons. In total the US supplied about 2% of Iraq's military assets. The US actually supplied Iran with missiles towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war. And the US was a spectator of Iran-Iraq war.

      The 2003 Iraq war was the direct result of the world community not forcing Iraq to abide by the terms of their surrender in 1991. Instead a lot of countries were making lucrative deals with Iraq oil shipments. Oil for food was one big scam cooked up by the feckless UN bottom feeders.

      And the violence and mayhem in the ME is caused by the bomb builders, suicide bombers, trigger pullers, head choppers, and other psychotic actions. They are not "terrorists" they are serial murderers. They kill for sport and they are masters at using the US ROE's to survive amongst as many civilians they can kidnap for use as human shields. The world needs to stop giving those mother fuckers a pass for their atrocities. They are not children they are people who made a choice and carried out their actions. The terrorists are strong because they know the blame for their actions gets assigned to someone else.
       

    4. Re:Obama is responsible by tuxgeek · · Score: 0

      You are so fucking clueless. Absolutely disgusting
      "We armed Iraq in the 1980s as they fought Iran,"
      WE ARMED BOTH FUCKING SIDES ASSHOLE!

      Raygun sold boatloads of military hardware to Iran in '81 for helping him get elected.
      Hell, those assholes sold military hardware to everybody. Even OBL. All Illegal as hell by any law under the sun.
      They literally made Al Queda and released it onto the world.
      Fitting that the most recent Bush clusterfuck we had earned them all guilty convictions for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
      Good thing you missed that part. They pretty much raped and buttfucked the world and left us with this shitpile to deal with.

      Good goldfish! Look, Fox news is feeding you more bullshit. Go get it

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    5. Re:Obama is responsible by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Very Informative.
      Very well put, relational history between the groups. If I had mod points ..

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    6. Re: Obama is responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're a partisan hack. Go back to watching Rachel Madcow.

      No fucking shit that the Americans were happy to send arms to Iraq and Iran. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who used chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds. The American support helped strengthen his military and acquire the chemical weapons. And yes, Reagan and Bush 41 both helped arm Iraq. No shit.

      And no fucking shit that the US helped arm and train what eventually became AQ. They intervened and tried to fight a proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

      Bush 43 fucked up by invading Iraq. Again, no fucking shit. However, this didn't involve arming rebels, which has a history of turning around and hurting the US. That's the point, that so often American intervention in the Middle East has created far more problems than it solves. And Obama's foreign policy decisions were the most directly responsible for enabling ISIL to grow and become a threat.

      Both parties have fucked up, but ISIL is Obama's mess. Get your head out of your ass and accept it. And Obama desperately wants Assad out, and though Assad is a brutal dictator, ousting him is likely to leave a void where an even worse leader can take over. Iraq was less of a mess when Bush left office. He fucked up and shares some of the blame, which if you were capable of basic comprehension, you would understand that I criticized him strongly, too.

      Unfortunately, you're too much of a partisan hack, and can't accept that Democrats have also fucked up in the Middle East. The United States would be far better without people like you who are incapable of seeing beyond partisan bullshit. The fact is, American presidents have generally been completely inept in foreign policy in the Middle East. Clinton was really the only recent President who didn't create a huge mess there.

    7. Re:Obama is responsible by Required+Snark · · Score: 0, Redundant
      It makes no difference what your analysis is if you don't even mention Bush. Remember him? The guy who invaded the wrong country? President My Pet Goat, for want of a better term.

      I know that you have a mental block against facts and objective reality, so here are some important real world events you skipped over:

      1) Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, but Bush and his cronies lied their teeth out and whipped up a frenzy to invade.

      2)There were no WMDs, except fragments left over from the Iraq/Iran war. Another deliberate lie to make the war seem reasonable. Don't forget that during the Iran/Iraq war the US was sponsoring Saddam Hussein and Cheney was a big Saddam fan.

      3) Bush the Idiot and his incompetent crew did no planning for post invasion Iraq. And by no planning I mean absolutely nothing. They waited until after the fall of Hussein to recruit anyone to administer the country. Many were picked because they worked on the Bush campaign and were Republican loyalists with no international experience. A large number had to apply for passports because they had never left the US in their lives. To give an idea of how they functioned, just think of the $12 billion cash (in $100 bills) that was sent to Iraq and just vanished. To this day no one knows what happened to it.

      4) The invasion happened in 2003 and Obama took office in January 2009. There were over six years of massive incompetence overseen by the Bush administration and Obama inherited the entire mess. You would have to go back the end of WW2 in Europe or Japan to find anything nearly as bad. You talk as if it all just magically appeared on January 20 2009 when Obama took the oath of office. WTF?

      It's like describing Eastern Europe after WW2 and ignoring Germany's invasion, or the takeover of China by Mao's Communists and ignoring the Japanese empire. Your description is unconnected with historical reality. You're worse then the fools who claim the world is only 6000 years old. You were alive when this happened. Just like Bush, you have no excuse.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    8. Re:Obama is responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everything the other party does is BAD, and everything my party is GOOD! Even when those are the exact same things!
      TAKE THAT, BUSH!

    9. Re:Obama is responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing to note about Islam is that it's not a 'live & let live' religion: everybody is expected to make everybody else follow 'true Islam', or whatever they think it is. So it's not enough to let all Muslims of different sects in any country co-exist happily - be it in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, et al.

      Islam has been around a few centuries, with the various sects just as long: has the level of 'hatred' been around that long as well? It's not like the various sects just appeared next to each other. They've been neighbors (along with various Christians and Zoroastrians) for centuries.

    10. Re:Obama is responsible by jandersen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing to note about Islam is that it's not a 'live & let live' religion: everybody is expected to make everybody else follow 'true Islam', ...

      In Matth 28:19, all Christians are ordered to "go and make disciples of all nations, ..." - something that is thankfully shrugged off by most followers of Christianity, but it has in the past been taken as a carte blanche to go out and subdue ther rest of the world, from the innumerable, religious wars or trivia, the Crusades (the Christian term for Jihad), the European imperialism ("We have a duty to civilise the Heathens") etc etc. It is also well known to anybody with a moderately open mind, that by far the most Muslims are completely relaxed about whether other people follow other religions.

      What we can learn from this is that religion is not what drives people to commit violence, terrorism or other atrocities; religion is merely the excuse. A way of explaining away why you don't feel guilt - a lie, in other words. And here you are, trying to convince yourself and others that religion is an excuse for treating other humans badly, simply because you don't like their faith.

    11. Re:Obama is responsible by unixisc · · Score: 1

      And they had those wars during those times as well. Starting from the Samanids, who instituted a systematic discrimination against all non Muslims, so that slowly, Iranians embraced Islam. And there were always wars not just b/w Shias and Sunnis, but also within those. Only time they were quiet was when they were suppressed by external non-Muslim entities, such as Genghiz Khan or the early part of the Ilkhanate (before it Islamized)

    12. Re:Obama is responsible by unixisc · · Score: 2

      The above fails to explain what ISIS is doing in countries like Bangladesh, or Libya, or Philippines or a host of other countries that Boooooosh forgot to invade. What is ISIS doing in a Muslim country where there are no US troops and no WMDs?

    13. Re:Obama is responsible by unixisc · · Score: 2

      The difference here is that Christianity went through a reformation - in fact quite a few - that reinterpreted a lot of the things you mentioned so that they are no longer applicable today. In fact, that's been around for more than a century - one did not see any religious wars in the 1900s. In Islam, however, such a re-interpretation is known as 'bida' or innovation, and is considered heretical. The laws that were laid out during the Abbasid caliphate are considered ironclad for all time and not open for re-interpretation. And the few Muslims who did try to challenge that have more often than not met w/ a violent end. Which is why the ones w/ the most sense have just apostatizes - quietly in Muslim countries, where it often carries a death penalty, or publicly elsewhere, assuming that they don't fear death threats or a public lynching.

      P.S. FWIW, I am not a Christian. In fact, I don't belong to any of the Abrahamic faiths

    14. Re:Obama is responsible by unixisc · · Score: 3, Informative

      People blame 'Raygun' and the CIA/USA for arming the Taliban and al Qaeda. Actually, wrong on both counts. During the Afghan war, the party that the US supported was a Pashto Jihadist group called Hizb ul Islami, led by Gulbuddin Heqmatyar, who is today considered by the US a terrorist. That was also the warlord of choice of General Zia ul Haq, the Pak president: the US at the time outsourced its policy on Afghanistan (in terms of whom to support) to Pakistan, and on the Middle East to Egypt (which influenced the US to take Iraq's side in the war, partly to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the Arabs who boycotted them after their peace treaty w/ Israel). Pakistan switched its support to the Taliban when Benazir Bhutto - that champion of women - came to power and hated everyone that Gen Zia supported (since he had hanged her father). But by then, the Soviets were already out of Afghanistan, and Pakistan wanted a client regime in Kabul, which the Taliban delivered.

      As far as al Qaeda went, they got their support from not just renegade Saudis (since the Saudi royals hated them and were hot on them since they wanted to overthrow the monarchy in Riyadh) but from other Arab Jihadists from countries like the Emirates and Qatar. Remember, only 3 countries recognized the Taliban regime even though they had almost 100% control in Afghanistan - KSA, UAE and Pakistan.

    15. Re:Obama is responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "paying Iraqi militia to provide security. Obama stopped those payments and undid what Bush had finally gotten right" ...I am having a difficult time tracking this down with google. Could you provide a source?

    16. Re:Obama is responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Matth 28:19, all Christians are ordered to "go and make disciples of all nations, ..."

      Kinda like vegans nowadays, basically.

    17. Re:Obama is responsible by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      As a German comedian put it, he was the boogeyman in the closet for the US. A convenient little whipping boy you could take out of the closet and spank a little whenever domestic problems grew. An intern complaining about you leaving white specs on her blouse? Open the closet and spank the whipping boy about. Approval ratings in the basement? Out comes the boogeyman! Saddam was cool with that. And you could rely on him. Say what you want, he was a reliable ally. From the 1980s right to the end.

      And then Bush, that idiot, goes and cleans out the closet.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Obama is responsible by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Religion is externalizing your internal hatred and bigotry. "It's not me that hates the Jews, the gays, the "sinner", but God does!"

      Bullshit. You're trying to rationalize and externalize your very own irrational hate. Plain and simple.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Obama is responsible by jandersen · · Score: 1

      How is any of what you describe different from what went on in Christianity? Persecution of heretics in Christianity didn't stop with the Reformation - the followers of Luther, Calvin etc were even more intolerant of what they saw as heresy, than the Catholics. Except perhaps for the Quakers. Hell, if you go to some places in the US, where they take their version of the Gospel very serious indeed, then you won't meet much tolerance either, if you dissent from their "Truth". This is simply human nature - we create our Gods according our own pettyness, which is why we hear that "God hates gays" and so on.

    20. Re:Obama is responsible by unixisc · · Score: 2

      What is different is that you only have a fringe that clings to the narrow views that you describe, among Christians. Not the case w/ Muslims

      Pick a 'moderate' Muslim country, like Malaysia. There, you have a systematic discrimination in favor of Muslims (Malays) over non-Muslims (Chinese, Indians): it's called Bhumiputra. Although most people think of it as an ethnic discrimination against non-Malays, it includes for protection converts to Islam, Hui Chinese (who are Muslim) while excluding non-Muslim native tribes like Dayaks, Orang Asli, et al. There, it is illegal for Malays to convert out of Islam, no matter what. Show me any Christian country where apostasy is against the law.

      Moderate Muslim countries simply ban apostasy from Islam - don't recognize it legally even if it happens. The more extreme ones have a death penalty if someone dares convert out of it. And in the rare case that a country does not have legal sanctions against apostasy, you have vigilantes who would murder the culprit in an honor killing. Which makes it dangerous for them even in non-Muslim countries where such laws don't apply

    21. Re:Obama is responsible by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Actually, the US supplied a lot of weapons to Egypt which rerouted them to Iraq. And in the case of Iran, where you had the arms for hostages deal, you had Israel supplying weapons to Iran. That was actually a win-win for the US: two of their regional enemies fighting each other, instead of fighting them. One longs for those days.

    22. Re: Obama is responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person you replied to didn't mention a republican or a democrat once. But you did.'yet you call him a partisan hack. My how the mighty have fallen.

      Do as I say, not as I do. Or do as I do, not as I say.

      Tldr: get your head out of your ass, you are creating things that don't exist outside of your small brain.

    23. Re:Obama is responsible by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      I'm actually more spot on than you realize, regarding raygun/OB/AlQaeda/ISIS/XYZ.
      I don't question your "facts".

      I present the facts that Raygun, making backroom deals with Islamic factions in Afganistan, partly to fuck with the soviets, partly for money & power .. afterward you renege on all promises .. and then publicly make your new "friends" now your most hated enemy ..

      The fact that the US has been meddling in and outright fucking over many of the countries of the middle east for generations .. for oil .. and money/power

      It takes time to make a fine wine.
      Most people in the US have the attention span of goldfish.

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    24. Re:Obama is responsible by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I more or less agree w/ you. I don't fully agree w/ what Reagan did then, but I do understand what he did. He determined that Communism was a greater threat than Islam, and that was something that could be validly argued. So he allied w/ Islamic forces from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia and helped make Afghanistan the Vietnam of the Soviets. Once the Cold War ended, it was legitimate for the US to withdraw from the region, but then, different countries, like Pakistan, Iran, et al all wanted their puppets to emerge in Kabul. End result was a Jihadist regime that decided to be the planning center for 9/11.

      There are those who are big advocates of intervention in the region. I'm not - I don't think it's worth our money, much less our blood. But what I do support is isolating ourselves from them. Ban Muzzies from coming here, and the ones already here legally - citizens, for example - the moment they engage in acts of Jihad, treat them as enemy combatants and get rid of them FAST!!! Within their own hellholes in places like Pakistan or Syria or Iraq or Libya, let them do what they like. Just make it clear that the West doesn't owe them any sanctuary for any reason whatsoever

  8. WHOA CHECK OUT NEWS FOR FBI NERDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    ANNIVERSARY 10

  9. FIRST POST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    already FBI issues.

  10. Twitter isn't legally responsible for ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they'll have a hard time denying responsibility for @realDonaldTrump, which is potentially much worse.

    1. Re:Twitter isn't legally responsible for ISIS by unixisc · · Score: 1

      ... for ISIS

    2. Re:Twitter isn't legally responsible for ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll let Putin take care of ISIS!

  11. Oh,ISIS on Slashdot this is normal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    You people are all liars at Slashdot now I can tell too.

  12. Happy #CincoDeMayo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Donald Trump loves Hispanics. He does! And he's made major, major sacrifices.

    1. Re:Happy #CincoDeMayo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is politics for nerds now?

    2. Re:Happy #CincoDeMayo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION is running this site now covertly.

    3. Re:Happy #CincoDeMayo by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Trump will just say what he thinks will get him in the char and/or give him free advertising.
      He probably would be a lot more cautious if his opponent was not hillary.

  13. So Twitter supports ISIS and gets away with it? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Given Twitter's backing by Saudi Arabia, I'm not surprised.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:So Twitter supports ISIS and gets away with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like Trump's? They're thrilled to pieces to have a completely incompetent US president, who will prevent Iranian or Iraqi oil from ever being legally sold through sheer snap judgment politics.

    2. Re:So Twitter supports ISIS and gets away with it? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I heard something like 1/3rd-owned by Saudi interests. Anyone got actual data?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  14. so what exactly is going on with this webssite now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    All the stories are weird. I uesd to read this for the new tech news but it is always only hacker and government policies and stuff?! Why are Twitter and ISIS a thing? I have twitter and i nver see ISIS on twitter.

  15. Re:so what exactly is going on with this webssite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I was thinking the same thing. My device connects to a.fsdn.com no less than 8 times per page load now? It never used to. Sometimes lately it did connect to symcd.com which is another CA server. (Certificate Authority). It should not. Now it doesn't but it loads over and over so many connections to a.fsdn.com on port 443 which seems to be like analytics? Are they possibly tracking users now? I won't log in any more.

  16. Re:so what exactly is going on with this webssite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    HEY WHAT THE FUCK DICE MINE TOO!

    Over and over I see in my logs it just goes crazy with a.fsdn.com entries now.
    Something is wrong here.

  17. %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-% FLEECE NAVIDAD % % by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking snoops all over Slashdot my niggas.

  18. yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FBI.

  19. Re:so what exactly is going on with this webssite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I don't even log in any more. Ever since BEUAHD started posting stories it has been not so great to say the least. People have been saying his name means BUREAU HEAD as in FBI. Comments all over here say the same thing as you can see.

    I'm never going to use my account again. It isn't that I do anything wrong or write anything spectacular it is just creepy to be spied on in a forum I have used for a long time.

  20. Re:so what exactly is going on with this webssite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Windows and I see it too.

  21. Two possibilities by Shane_Optima · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Either Twitter is:

    1. Run by delusional SJWs who refuse to ban people who support and praise the most unapologetically despicable quasi-state the modern world has ever seen (because any concession to Islamophobia would be worse.)

    2. They are constantly being approached by three letter agencies who alternately beg and demand that they not ban these accounts so that the users can be traced, warrants can be generated (against anyone who likes or retweets them), closet jihadi sympathizers goaded into saying something stupid, etc. And NSLs prevent them from saying anything about it.


    Now, I'm not saying that SJWish Islamophilia is never a problem in the West, but If you think the first possibility is more likely than the second... your tinfoil hat is on inside out.

    1. Re:Two possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anon for... reasons. There's a third option one might try: Twitter is so hopelessly disorganized, it's impossible for them to present anything like consistent policy/enforcement across the service. Everything is an emergency. Everything case-by-case. It has to be because no one has it together. Never attribute to malice, etc etc.

      It's been that way years. Anyone there who had brains bailed out the very instant the IPO unlocked.

    2. Re:Two possibilities by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or:

      3. Twitter is such a massive service, with a continually growing user base, with so many tweets posted and so much data ingested; that to stop ISIS using it is an extraordinarily difficult problem that they haven't solved.

      Imagine they tried to do it automatically. How do you program that AI? It has to distinguish between actual ISIS posts and accounts and actual people wishing to join ISIS versus: government types investigating ISIS, other terrorist groups claiming to be ISIS, people trolling by pretending to be ISIS, people trolling ISIS by pretending to want to join, people reporting on ISIS, people mocking ISIS, people discussing ISIS or news about ISIS, people into egyptology talking about the goddess Isis, Archer fans talking about the fictional ISIS, actual people named Isis, and so on, all without generating false positives and removing the posts or accounts of anyone besides the actual terrorist ISIS.

      Block by IP address blocks that they believe are owned by ISIS? Laughable. I shouldn't need to say more.

      Do it manually? Right off the bat, you need multilingual staff fluent in at least English and Arabic, plus probably French, Spanish, and Farsi. And not just academically fluent as in "I took classes in school"; but actually fluent and nuanced enough to understand the aforementioned differences and never have false positives. Those people don't come cheap, even if the task is simple and easy. They especially don't come cheap in the Bay Area, where they can probably get a better job doing software localization. But assuming you can find the talent pool of fluent multilingual willing to do the crap job of slogging through twitter looking for ISIS posts and accounts; twitter ingests half a billion tweets per DAY. I can't begin to imagine how many people it would take to screen all that; nor just how awful that job would be.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    3. Re:Two possibilities by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To catch all kinds of euphemisms and hidden double entendres you'd need a native speaker who happens to have been in the area recently to pick up all neologisms too.

      People like this aren't just expensive, they're simply near impossible to get.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Two possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter has not demonstrated a strong willingness to combat the problem. Given the severity of terrorism it is difficult to see Twitter's quietness on the issue in a positive light.

    5. Re:Two possibilities by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Imagine they tried to do it automatically. How do you program that AI? "

      And if they were able to develop such an AI, it would be the greatest investigative weapon against terrorists the world has ever seen.

    6. Re:Two possibilities by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      ... all without generating false positives and removing the posts or accounts of anyone besides the actual terrorist ISIS. ...and never have false positives...

      Where in the world did you get the requirement that there have to be exactly zero false positives?

      Surely false positives are bad and should be avoided. But I venture that most people would find it an acceptable tradeoff if one in a million legitimate tweets gets rejected by filter. Systems don't have to be perfect to be usable. Heck, I bet that random network errors and other gremlins cause just as many failures anyway.

      Even /. has a automatic spam filter that will trigger if you try to post a message with too few words and links to spammy domains. One time, it falsely flagged a legitimate message I was posting. The world didn't end, I reposted it to look less spammy, all is well in the world.

    7. Re:Two possibilities by mixed_signal · · Score: 1

      One has to ask why we apparently let the terrorist organizations use these services that run on networks used for commercial and public services, as it is clear they provide a low cost and wide coverage recruiting method. There seems to be too little discussion on strategies to keep them off the networks in the first place. This probably sounds naive, but come on, Twitter and Facebook are for-profit companies. It's not like a public infrastructure like a roadway that the terrorists are driving down. (Any links to real proposals on this would be appreciated...)

    8. Re:Two possibilities by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

      "Imagine they tried to do it automatically. How do you program that AI? "

      And if they were able to develop such an AI, it would be the greatest investigative weapon against terrorists the world has ever seen.

      And, shortly thereafter, the greatest weapon for terrorists the world has ever seen.

    9. Re:Two possibilities by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Uh, I'm not sure why you and SvnLyrBrto think this is a hard problem. The people using Arabic twitter aren't being subtle about it. For example, the "#KillAllAtheists" hashtag was trending a while back.

      Is there some hidden double meaning there that we're missing?

    10. Re:Two possibilities by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Some popular Arabic hashtags are overtly pro-violence and pro-ISIS with no alternative interpretation. Twitter has apparently not pursued the policy of auto-banning or even sending an automatic warning to anyone who says #KillAllAtheists, for example. "Cockup before conspiracy" is a fine guiding principle in life, but in this case I don't think it's sufficient.

    11. Re: Two possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it is twitters job to police everyone? Get out of here, we are adults for Christ sakes. If someone wants to joint Isis they will either thru Twitter or some other network they might use. It's a cat and mouse game.

    12. Re: Two possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APK is that you?

    13. Re:Two possibilities by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Twitter has not demonstrated a strong willingness to combat the problem. Given the severity of terrorism it is difficult to see Twitter's quietness on the issue in a positive light.

      Except in the light of my #2 explanation. If you don't think that Twitter is in constant contact with every major three letter agency in America (and MI5, and MI6, and at least half of the intelligence agencies across the Middle East), then you haven't been paying attention.

      I'm not necessarily claiming that their strategy is the best strategy they could be pursuing, but it's absurd to assume that Twitter is pursuing these policies (and leaving themselves vulnerable public controversy and lawsuits such as this one) over the explicit objections of those agencies, whilst simultaneously going out of their way to ban people like Milo.

    14. Re:Two possibilities by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Given who they put onto their abuse council (whatever the fuck it's called) I'm fairly confident that (1) is a far higher factor than you give it credit for.

    15. Re:Two possibilities by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that every time you start censoring, people come up with clever ways to circumvent it. If you can no longer communicate openly, people start to develop codes. If you need proof thereof, ask anyone from the former East Bloc. For example I remember that "blue tiles" was East German code for west money. So anyone who was willing to part with something rare and sought after usually put an ad in the paper that he wanted to trade it for blue tiles.

      Did you know that? Probably not, if you weren't from Germany or a nearby country. Now imagine you're running a board where trading for West German money is forbidden, would you have known that this has to be removed? Probably not. Any German (or pretty much any other Middle European) you might employ probably would.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Two possibilities by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I would bet they could find enough native speakers of Arabic, if only those people didn't feel like their very lives might be threatened by exposure. I can think of at least a couple Saudi atheists who really would rather not live in a theocracy that wants them dead, and would help defeat it if they could do so without extreme risk.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  22. this summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gave me a law school gasm

  23. Sucker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Classic legal feint trying to get the judge to stupidly declare Twitter an uninterested party. This will be used to keep them out of the next stage of the suit and he/they won't be able to rectify unless they can get an appeals court to rescind and resend the case to the original jurisdiction. Twitter won't be able to Thiel the next suit without sanctions.

  24. Twitter Is Not Legally Responsible.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twitter Is Not Legally Responsible For The Rise of ISIS... of course not it was Osiris

  25. Don't worry by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    We'll build a firewall and send the bill to the Muslims

    1. Re:Don't worry by unixisc · · Score: 1

      OPEC can pay for it. After all, OPEC is pretty much the Mohammedan countries (not counting Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria and a few others)

  26. Responsible For The Rise of ISIS? Answer: USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... Perhaps everyone has already forgotten that when Washington’s plan to invade Syria was blocked by the UK Parliament and Russian diplomacy, Washington sent the forces used against Gaddafi in Libya to overthrow Assad in Syria where they emerged as ISIS and commit extraordinary atrocities.

  27. what i blame is by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    islam, the religion of peace, thats what i blame

    https://www.thereligionofpeace...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:what i blame is by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Mod this one up!!!

    2. Re: what i blame is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every organized religion has its problems.

    3. Re:what i blame is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    4. Re: what i blame is by unixisc · · Score: 1

      So why don't we have worldwide Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Shinto/Taoist/Rastafarian/Scientological/Jain/Zoroastrian terrorists trying to terrorize in the name of their $DEITY?

    5. Re: what i blame is by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And technically back in the 80s Scientology was pretty aggressive about doing their best to make anyone who publicly disagreed with them's life a living hell.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    6. Re: what i blame is by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Au Shinrikyo was a cult. That's like calling the Branch Davidians or the Heavensgate wackos Christians.

    7. Re: what i blame is by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      *Aum Shinrikyo

      Cult is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently they were officially recognized as a "religious legal entity" in Japan.

      idiosyncratic interpretations of elements of early Indian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism along with Hinduism, taking Shiva as main image of worship and incorporating millennialist ideas from the Christian Book of Revelation, Yoga and the writings of Nostradamus.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  28. Muslims are responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting anon for obvious reasons though I will check back for replies. I went out of my way to create a chart of the least to most backward Islamic people in each country. The data was sourced from the very resectable PewForum. It turns out Afghanistan is the worst with Pakistan trailing closely behind. Countries where Muslims fare more reasonably include Kazakstan and Russia generally.

    Some of the figures are really shocking such as 86% of Muslims in Pakistan favour stoning for adultery, and 88% of Egyptian Muslims believe in the death penalty for leaving Islam.

    Here's the graph: https://i.sli.mg/T7Uzwd.png

    1. Re:Muslims are responsible by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Surely, the reason for this is obvious. In Kazakhstan - and all the ex Soviet Stans, where Islam (along w/ religion in general) was suppressed for 70+ years, preceded by Tsarist Russian suppression of Islam for much of the 19th century onwards - these countries, people are less Islamic, and are more or less where Russia is. Both economically and culturally. Whereas countries that have had minimal intervention by non-Islamic forces, such as Pakistan or Egypt, the people are more fanatical

      I wonder how long that will be, though. Tajikistan has been increasingly under the influence of Iran, while the other Stans and Azerbaijan have been gravitating towards Turkey. The latter which has turned away from its Kemalesque pining for Europe, and instead looking to lead all Turkic countries like these, as well as the Sunni Islamic world, and upstaging Iran there.

    2. Re:Muslims are responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I'm sure you have a point. Do you know if the Muslims in Kazakhstan or Russia are whiter in skin tone than Middle Eastern or North African countries? Just curious...

    3. Re:Muslims are responsible by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Muslims span a lot of races. The ones in the East Indies as well as the Indian subcontinent are of Indian descent. The ones in the Stans and Turkey are Turkic. The ones in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan are Iranian. The ones in the Middle East and North Africa are Arab. The ones in Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania are Slavs and Illyrians, while the Chechens, Tatars and others around them are Caucasian. And then there are Black Africans as well - like the ones in Darfur, Sudan, Chad, Niger and so on. Oh, and there's also the normal White Converts to Islam - like Nick Young in the DC Metro last week.

      I'm glad that you brought up this point, b'cos it's an important one to make to those who accuse people of being racist when they are being 'Islamophobic'. As I described, Islam spans people of a variety of races & skin tones - from the very white Tatars of Qashliq to the very black Sudanese of Darfur. But the Jihadist attacks that have happened over time have involved people of all races: the Boston Marathon bombings were done by the Tsarnaev brothers, who were white Chechens, the San Bernardino was done by a Pakistani couple who were ethnically Indian, the Chattanooga shooting at the barrack was done by a Kuwaiti Arab (why did we liberate them?) and the Orlando nightclub was done by an Afghan. Except maybe the Afghan and Paki, none of these people shared a race, but all shared a religion - ISLAM.

      While bigotry may be a less inaccurate label, it's not bigoted to suspect people who want to kill you.

    4. Re:Muslims are responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would indeed seem that Islam is the common denominator then.
       
      .

      The thing which holds me back from thinking that completely is that African Christians (or even African Americans in say Detroit) are often just as barbaric. Maybe that's just poverty and education, but I suspect it may be something more.

  29. Simple to solve: Apply net neutrality rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Twitter is not held liable for things that its users post (like Jihad recruiting) then force them to apply their terms of service equally instead of censoring viewpoints with which they don't agree. Milo was perma banned for not violating their terms of service (as far as we know because they have never said why) yet Leslie Jones directly violated the TOS and got a warm hug from @Jack

    https://twitter.com/lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352

  30. AT&T almost got away with it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other related news, AT&T has been cleared in the case against them for supporting kidnapper ransom requests, facilitating drug sales between individuals, prostitution on craigslist, murder, extortion, and 'most other crimes'. However, they were finally taken down for fraudulent money laundering.

  31. Precedence for the pro-gun folks by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    This could mean a gun manufacturer is not liable for someone committing murder with their product, right?

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  32. Nixon shock is resposible by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Since 1971 America is bullying Saudi Arabia to sell Oil exclusively in US Dollars;
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
    Result is friction between The Muslim and The West;
    http://qz.com/562128/isil-is-a...

    --
    Casteism